Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, October 14, 2013

Don't Contaminate My Textbooks


Darwin's Cheerleaders are continually on patrol to protect their material from serious scrutiny. Ironically, they use all sorts of logical fallacies to do this. These include equivocating "evolution" with "science, saying that "Intelligent Design" is religion, and using emotionally-loaded terminology such as, "We don't want textbooks contaminated by creationism", or, "Ray Comfort's video is biblical porn". We had a troll at The Question Evolution Project use a fake name on a recently acquired account, telling us that creationists are stupid and dishonest. Uh, yeah...

What would happen if people were trained to think critically and honestly examine the evidence without evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions? They might see that "proofs" of evolution still fail, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still used, outdated and fraudulent materials are used in evolutionary indoctrination, lying to students for the purposes of evolutionary indoctrination is acceptable, that there are indeed peer-reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design, that creationist scientists publish in journals and much more. Nope, can't have any facts that are contrary to evolutionism creeping into textbooks, can we?

No, it is much easier to malign the opposition and protect evolutionism from examination.
Some evolutionists see anything less than 100% pure Darwinism as a kind of contamination, like unpasteurized milk, a threat to public health.
Andy Coghlan wrote for New Scientist, “Texas Creationism Showdown May ‘Contaminate’ Textbook.”  It appears that the only changes proposed by the textbook committee are to “cast doubt on the scientific validity of evolution.”  Coghlan is worried, however, that a decision by the 15-member Texas State Board of Education “may contain creationist arguments.”  He did not provide any examples.
You can read the rest of "Creationism As 'Contamination'", here



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels